Elon Musk’s recent initiative to give away $1 million daily to voters in crucial swing states ahead of the US presidential election has been ruled by a Philadelphia judge to not be a lottery. Judge Angelo Foglietta from Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas made this decision after Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner sued Musk and his pro-Trump super PAC, America PAC, for conducting an illegal lottery.
During the hearing, Musk and America PAC argued that the winners would be chosen randomly from a list of swing-state voters who endorsed free speech and gun rights. However, it was revealed in court that the winners were not randomly selected but carefully chosen and compensated for working with the PAC.
The judge stated that the campaign did not meet the criteria required for a lottery under Pennsylvania law, which includes a payment, a prize, and a random chance to win. He also dismissed Krasner’s claim that signatories were being scammed for their information as mere speculation without evidence.
Although the issue was deemed somewhat irrelevant since the hearing took place the day before the election and America PAC had decided that no one from Pennsylvania would win the final prize, Musk and America PAC are now facing a class-action lawsuit. An Arizona resident who signed the petition believing she had a chance at the prize filed the lawsuit alleging fraud and breach of contract.
The plaintiff argues that had she known she had no chance of winning the $1 million, she would not have supported the petition or provided her personal data to the defendants. The lawsuit also highlights concerns about America PAC’s use of the personal data it collects, as the petition does not specify any limitations on the use or sale of the data.
This ruling sheds light on the legal implications of conducting contests and giveaways, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to laws and regulations. It serves as a reminder to individuals and organizations engaging in such activities to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to be transparent in their practices to avoid legal repercussions.
